Appeal No. 95-4648
Application No. 07/952,137
thermoplastic resin, these carbon fibers may be surface
treated.” (column 3, lines 23-25). Therefore one of ordinary
skill in the art would have expected better results if the
reinforcing fibers had been surface treated.
Furthermore, the fibers of each comparative example are
of different lengths (Example “C” uses 12 mm lengths, Example
S1 uses 12.5/25 mm length fibers, and Example S2 uses 50 mm
length fibers). The matrix resin also differs between the
prior art Example and the Examples representing the claimed
subject matter. Different types of polyamide apparently were
used in these Examples. See the listings under “Material” in
Table 1 of the Declaration, where UX-21 is formed from a
caprolactam (specification, page 7) while “CM1010 of Toray” is
unspecified other than “Nylon 6". The cause and effect sought
to be proven is lost here when so many variables are unfixed.
In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 439, 146 USPQ 479, 483 (CCPA 1965).
Appellants also argue that a “critical distinction”
between the present claims and Kobayashi is the number of
reinforcing agents (Brief, page 6, and Reply Brief, pages 1-
2). Appellants’ argument is not well taken since claim 28 is
not limited to one reinforcing agent by both the words “at
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007